Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Schertzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Schertzer

Scott Schertzer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete so we've had a go where some think that mayors of any city with more than 50,000 people are inherently notable, how about 35,000? I don't think so, and this unsourced substub multiplied by thousands is the likely result of relaxing notability standards - we have no clue where or when this guy was born, what party he is in, what his policies are, whether he has much power or the city council wields the lions share - nada, zilch. Great encyclopedia article, huh? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Make Stub Warrior4321talkContribs 00:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. If we are wrong, the article can be created anew; the 24 words that make up the current article won't be too big a loss to humanity. Midwest Peace (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have labelled the article as a stub, and added two references. Regardless of the size of Marion's population, the article now passes the primary notability criterion: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." --Eastmain (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:LOCAL. This is far below WP:BIO and below my personal recommended standard for mayors of cities 100,000 and up. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Mayors get elected every 2-4 years, and they have been elected for hundreds of years, and trying to note each and every one is absolutely not appropriate. This is especially true since a biography is supposed to be a biography, not an index entry, and it is supposed to be a biography of a person who has set himself or herself apart from the 6 billion others. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:LOCAL. A couple of local references is not sufficient. An article about the city might mention the present mayor. I cannot see the point of hundreds of thousands of potential articles about every person who was ever the mayor of a small town and got his name in the newspaper a couple of times, since notability is permanent, and any mayor of any town probably got into the local newspaper at least as many times as this fellow did, or the paper wasn't doing its job. As an example, I can go to Newspaperarchive.com, select any small town, and voila I can find a dozen refs to Mayor H.W. Lander of Beaver Dam, Wisconsin in the 1860's (population then under 3,000) in the Beaver Dam newspaper. He got elected, inaugurated, made speeches, signed laws, and once his horse bolted and the carriage overturned, etc. Multiply by hundreds of thousands of small towns worldwide and a new mayor every few years throughout its history. I cannot see why perfunctory coverage of a local official in a local paper satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously an individual mayor of even a very small town can be notable in some special circumstances, but in general this won't be the case. We can argue each one, or use a cutoff. We can each pick a number, or go with authority: In the contemporary US, the Census Bureau defines an Urban area with a population of at least 50,000 as able to serve as the core of a metropolitan statistical area, cf. List of United States urban areas that's not exactly the same as city, but its an official number of about the right magnitude. Personally, I'd have gone with Dhartung's number, or higher--the top 100 in the US comes to 300,000 population, but I think the census Bureau can do the deciding. The number might be different in other countries and other periods, if populations are larger or smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.